Disposed

Ms.P.Chandra Varshini, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Sept 2016WP/31419/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's exclusion from Priority-II (b) NCC quota for medical admissions. The court ruled the petitioner was ineligible for Priority-II but directed respondents to consider her under Priority-III (c) if she holds required certificates, and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Remitted for consideration under Priority-III (c) if required certificates are held; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Ms.P.Chandra Varshini, Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31419 of 2016

¶3

Between:

¶4

Ms. P. Chandra Varshini

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others.

¶8

RESPONSENTS

¶9

VRS,J & ASN,J. W.P.No.31419/2016

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.31419 of 2016

¶12

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶13

The petitioner, whose case was not considered under Priority-II (b) under the quota reserved for NCC candidates for admission to medical courses, has come up with the above writ petition seeking appropriate relief.

¶14

Heard Mrs. N. Vijaya Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5.

¶15

Though the petitioner has claimed a right to be considered under Priority-II (b) of G.O.Ms.No.75, Health Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 8.09.2015, she is not entitled to the same, as she participated in the Republic Day Parade at New Delhi only as a guest cadet. This is in view of the judgment delivered by the very same Bench of this Court on 13.07.2016 in a batch of cases in W.P.No.26478 of 2016.

¶16

However, the petitioner seeks her application to be considered at least under Priority-III (c). There is no dispute that the petitioner falls under Priority-III (c). Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider, if the petitioner actually holds any one of the certificates indicated in Priority-III (c), under the said category for admission to the professional courses. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

VRS,J & ASN,J. W.P.No.31419/2016

¶18

¶19

As a sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶20

stand closed.

¶21

______________________________ JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶22

______________ JUSTICE ANIS.

¶23

12^th September, 2016 Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow. Js.

Ms.P.Chandra Varshini, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms.P.Chandra Varshini, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gujjala Apurupa, Vs Dr. N.T.R.University of Health Sciences

M/s. Batco Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India, Represented by Revenue Secretary

D. Sree Rama Reddy (died) per lrs Appellants 2 to 6 Vs D. Lakshmana Rao

Sri G. Asok Kumar, Vs Vignanpuri Colony

Ummul Qura Educational Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Sri M. Dana Kishore Vs Vignanpuri Colony